....
As I said earlier my motor is too large to determine if the added washers are reducing or delaying the Lenz effect.  A new test set up either with bigger or more coils or a much smaller motor needs to be done to determine the effect the washers are having on the Lenz effect.

...

Hi Carroll, 

Thank you again for sharing your new measurents on this interesting setup.   

Would like to suggest a small modification on your rotor disk.  When you have time, you may wish to mount and embed further two magnets 
into the rotor, these would serve as rotor magnets for a small pulse motor, see the attached picture with my indicating the magnet places. 
And you would have room for two small stator motor coils to mount them on a vertical wood support fastened on the base platform. 
This way you could get rid of the scooter motor and would be able to sense any load behaviour on the generator side by monitoring the pulse motor input current.
The simplest pulse motor with one transistor controlled by a reed switch or a Hall sensor would serve well. The 2 motor coils would simply be in series and a fast diode would shunt both (or individually) for the flyback pulse to maintain motor coil current  a little after the switch-off moments.  Obviously such simple pulse motor could not provide high RPM for the rotor but would serve well for detecting any load change.
You could position the two motor magnets very close to the edges of the rotor disk alongside the diameter line (instead of the middle
I indicated), that would insure higher motor torque if that would be important.  I apologize for giving you such suggestion from my 'armchair', I thought it mentioning at least for your consideration.   

Regards
Gyula

My simple suggestion is to use a pendulum instead of a rotor and count the swings when dropped from the same point once for the washer enhancement and once for standard setup. Then you will see if there is less Lenz counter to the direction of the motion......

If nothing comes  out by next week I might have time to do that.
IRS comes first - 15th is coming.

Norman

...
I also noticed that first post original drawing has split rotor with iron going past rear end of coil core. I don't see the value for it. And as long as there is the rotor structure there, better off to use a magnet on it.
...

 

Hi Bistander, 

Do you mean to use a magnet on the split rotor instead of the iron piece?  I think you meant the iron on the bottom rotor disk in Boris's drawing, right?   

Gyula

Hi Gyula,

Yes. That's what I said, isn't it? Or was trying to say.
bi

I think the magnet will introduce a sticky point, a drag just after TDC, just like the load current does earlier what the iron reduces. I understand that a magnet in the place of iron would give a better drag compensation up to TDC moment but after passing TDC it would introduce back attraction to the coil core.  This is how I see it and asked whether I got your suggestion right.

Gyula

Hi Gyula,
I'll try to explain better. To me, half of the original idea quickly was dropped. I don't know why but likely it was difficult for citfta to implement with his existing apparatus. But I saw no benefit of the moving iron on that end of the coil core anyway. However using another magnet in place of that iron would likely increase flux through the coil core thereby increasing the generator performance namely in efficiency and power density. That has nothing to do with minimizing Lenz. Sorry if that went off topic.
bi

Hi Bi, 

Thanks for explaining, I understand.   

I see this setup differently.  I still think Boris's claim is valid and using the iron pieces the usual drag an electric load imposes on the rotor (hence on the prime mover of this generator) could be reduced.   
Lenz law still happens of course when the load current appears just after TDC but its counter to motion field (that normally causes the drag) is harnessed by attracting in the iron pieces with it. 

OF course this is a claim and it should be verified in practice with measurements. Carroll's kind tests showed that the presence of the iron pieces indeed increases output voltage hence power.

I understand also that the iron piece mounted next to the leaving side of the magnet modifies the magnet's flux distribution, making it asymmetric. 

Norman's pendulum test suggestion (Reply #32 above) is indeed simpler than using a pulse motor. 

Gyula

Hi ! I have Variant 3  . Compensation occurs when approaching . The magnet works simultaneously with the iron compensator .
It is designed for pendulums and the simple conversion of electric motors into free energy generators.
        V3 is different from V1, V2, and therefore the test results may be unexpected .

                                                                             

Regards ,
Boris

      It must be added that the coil is connected to the load only when approaching . When moving away from the coil, the load must be disconnected. This will allow the magnet and the iron compensator to leave without resistance. You can use a diode or other methods to do this.   

Hi Gyula,

I have not conducted practical tests of this idea.
Just not enough time for everything.
To find a good design, you need to conduct hundreds of tests ......
 Apparently, it is necessary to attract specialists on this issue.
I will be glad if business representatives show interest in the mass introduction of this technology.
Most people cannot make complex devices in the garage.
The optimal solution is quick assembly kits.
The community may have good ideas.


Regards,
 Boris

Low Lenz pendulum tests. In the photo you see a very large gap because the setup is not tight enough to make it smaller. I will work on more precision as time permits. You can see the metal beside the magnet.
 I woke up wide awake at 1am thinking about this and rigged and tested as you see - not too exciting with large gap.
However look at B 3 highlighted text.
  Measuring the current with a microamp meter shows no major difference with or without the metal except leaving the core seems greater amperage than approaching the core.

A. no metal
1. open coil 48 swings
2. short coil 38 swings
3. with diode 36 or 37 swings

B. with metal next to magnet.
1. open coil 46
2. shorted coil 37 or 38
3. diode > 44 swings - greater than A 3 above shows promise
4. diode > 43 swings   

So I would say this idea warrants more study. 

My old pendulum with 2 skate bearings was too sloppy so I used a bicycle front wheel axle and even as adjustable as that is and the arm 20 inches long there is some serious axle play.
 
What is amazing to me is the microamp meter moves further when the pendulum is not swing fast but less when it swings high and fast. go figure?
Norman